[F]or the combustion phase, it is possible to burn fossil fuels more efficiently than biomass. Hence, the former ought to reduce CO2 emissions overall. But a more sophisticated analysis ought to consider life-cycle consequences (including CO2 released in extraction, preparation, transportation, etc., of the two forms of biomass). [...] Biomass may be renewable, politically correct, and fossil-fuel displacing. But it is unlikely to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations much, if at all.
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/09/biomass-vs-fossil-fuels-co2-battery/

So long as one uses carbon-based combustion, the chances of reducing CO2 emissions are nil, whether one uses new biomass or a fossil fuel. In fact, since newer carbon sources are also associated with higher moisture content in the fuel, burning them would increase CO2 per unit of usable energy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/02/batteries-from-the-carboniferous/

The construction of a biomass plant at the Anglesey Aluminium Metals (AAM) site in Wales has been approved by the UK government. The plant, which is powered by wood-burning, has the potential to fuel over 300,000 homes and will provide the area with 700 new jobs. Energy minister Charles Hendry commended the approval of the plant claiming that it will provide a “reliable, secure, flexible and renewable source of power”. Despite Hendry’s praise, critics claim that the plant will create as many environmental problems as it will cure.

http://stockholmnetworkblog.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/uk-government-approves-anglesey-biomass-plant/

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/06/08/ten-years-and-counting-wheres-the-global-warming/

If there is one question, in my experience, that many climate scientists will avoid it is, “how long does the current standstill in global temperatures have to continue before you question some of your assumptions about global warming?” The question is a pertinent one. In the past decade there is evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased more steeply than before, so why hasn’t the temperature gone up faster than ever before?

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3192-warming-what-warming.html

The paper, published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics focused on the period 1844-1960 (but extended at least one graph back to 1600) and finds our current warming period is not that different from earlier episodes and that the increase in solar activity in the last 400 years explains the warming, without any need to invoke a man-made enhanced greenhouse hypothesis.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/study-finds-global-warming-over-past-400-years-was-due-to-increased-solar-activity/#more-15221

As someone who personally experienced central planning and attempts to organize the whole society from above, I feel obliged to warn against the arguments and ambitions which are very similar to those we had to live with decades ago. The arrogance with which the [Global Warming Doctrine] alarmists and their fellow-travelers in politics and media want to suppress the market, control the society, dictate the prices (directly or indirectly by means of various interventions, including taxes) is something I know well from the past[10]. All the old, already almost forgotten economic arguments against communism should be repeated now. It is our duty to do so.

The Global Warming Doctrine is Not a Science: Notes for Cambridge
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2830

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results. The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train. Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty. Matt Patterson in Meltdown of the Climate "consensus"

For 120.000 år siden var mængden af CO₂-indholdet i luften 78 pct. af hvad det er tilfældet i dag, vandstanden var i gennemsnit seks meter højere, og planeten var betydeligt varmere, end den er det i dag. [kilde]

For såvel 1.000 som for 500 år siden var klimaet også varmere: For 1.000 år siden var gennemsnitstemperaturen på omkring 24,5 gr. C. De næste 500 år oplevede planeten først et fald i temperaturen med næsten 2 gr. C (til 22,5 gr. C), før temperaturen atter steg til lidt under de 24 grader gr. C. Den nuværende gennemsnitstemperatur på omkring 23 gr. C svarer i øvrigt til temperaturen på omkring Jesu tid (alt dette målt ved havets overfladetemperatur). [kilde]

En række af disse temperaturstigninger og fald har i øvrigt været drastiske set med historiens målestok. Temperaturforandringerne har ikke desto mindre været aldeles uvæsentlige, når det gælder den menneskelige evne til at overleve og til at forbedre egne livsvilkår. Mennesket har til alle tider været i stand til at tilpasse sig. Og befolkningerne i de frie og industrialiserede lande har tilpasset sig bedst.

Klimaforandringer, herunder ændringer i gennemsnitstemperaturen, er den normale tilstand, når det gælder livet på klodens overflade. Store og voldsomme drivhuseffekter eller modsatrettede - kølehuseffekter har fundet sted i hele planetens historie.

Betydelige klimaforandringer sker derfor helt uden menneskers påvirkning af klimaet. Ideen om menneskets indflydelse, når det gælder klimaforandringer, er, som den fremtræder i medierne, derfor også vildt overdrevet.

Klimaets dynamik

Hvordan vil Kyoto-tilhængere eksempelvis forklare perioden 1940-1970, da den globale gennemsnitstemperatur faldt, mens mængden af CO₂-indholdet i atmosfæren samtidig steg? [kilde]

De kan kun forklare sådanne fænomener, der modbeviser enhver idé om nogen simpel sammenhæng, ved at gøre op med deres egne forudsætninger og dermed indrømme, at klimaet har sin helt egen dynamik.

De påståede simple sammenhænge mellem mængden af CO₂-indhold i atmosfæren og gennemsnitlige temperaturstigninger holder derfor ikke. [Kilde. Se også Scotese og Berner.]Der er blot tale om en tvivlsom og - fra et menneskeligt og naturhistorisk synspunkt - i øvrigt temmelig uinteressant teori.

Det mest foruroligende ved EU's klimapolitik, herunder det fastsatte mål for, hvor meget temperaturen må stige (hvem sagde storhedsvanvid?), er derfor først og fremmest, at denne absurde politik, som også Kyoto-aftalen er en del af, slet ikke får modspil fra forskere, ansvarlige politiske beslutningstagere eller fra medieverdenen.

Lige så bekymrende er det, at stort set ingen journalister og meningsdannere gør sig ulejlighed med at påpege de økonomiske og dermed velfærdsmæssige og sociale konsekvenser, der følger ved at forpligte befolkningen i alverdens lande på stadigt nye reduktioner af CO₂.

Hvorfor er der praktisk talt ingen, der protesterer over, at store dele af verdens befolkning nu skal lære at tilpasse sig den fattigdom, som Kyoto-aftalen medfører? Findes der virkelig en god begrundelse for, at velfærdsskabelse gennem industrialisering skal ofres til fordel for den mildt sagt absurde ambition om at regulere på den gennemsnitlige globale temperatur?

Bragt første gang 17. marts 2005 i Jyllands Posten

Læs også Internt brev fra finansministeren afslører uenighed om klimapolitikken

besøg også:
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

http://www.coin.dk/default.asp?aid=895

http://s-espersen.blogspot.com/2009/12/its-climategate-christmas.html

The former Chancellor Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, called for an independent inquiry into the skulduggery revealed by the Email leaks: “Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.”

You too, Al.

The perpetrators of world's greatest scientific hoax should go to jail by Frank J. Tamel, Examiner.Com

More:
http://s-espersen.blogspot.com/2009/11/glenn-beck-on-climategate-man-made.html

http://s-espersen.blogspot.com/2009/12/fox-news-climategate-reaches-nasa.html

http://s-espersen.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate.html

MUCH MORE:
http://www.climatedepot.com/

Endnu et arrangement om klimapolitikken:

Mainstream medierne og politikerne giver ikke et retvisende billede af klimaets forandring. Videnskaben er ikke enig om, hvad der vil ske. Det kan godt blive koldere de næste hundrede år. Opvarmning kan være gavnlig for verdens tilstand. Det menneskeskabte signal i klimaforandringerne er muligvis ubetydeligt. Endelig forudsætter alle IPCC scenarier, at man kan sige noget meningsfuldt om verdens socioøkonomiske og teknologiske forhold om 100 år.
På mødet vil vi gerne påpege den store usikkerhed, der er på de socioøkonomiske og naturvidenskabelige fremskrivninger. Vi vil se på hvilke klimastrategier, der er mest robuste, i lyset af denne usikkerhed, og vi vil diskutere, hvordan en ægte usikkerhed forvandles til en ”science is settled” dagsorden.
http://www.cepos.dk/

Køligt III - “The Copenhagen Climate Challenge”

Køligt II

Køligt

In the past decade, the overall trend of temperatures has been not upwards, but down.

In other words, as a growing army of genuine experts across the world has been trying to tell us, there is not a single item on the list of apocalyptic predictions we have been fed for so long by the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore which is not being called into question by what is actually happening to the world's climate.

The devastating book which debunks climate change by Christopher Booker, Daily Mail

See also:

Wall Street Journal - Climate Emails Stoke Debate (evidence of supressed dissensus)